A constitution should be about inalienable rights not guns and alcohol. It should be about free speech, freedom of religion, right to congregate etc. It becomes worthless when you put worthless things in it. If you can argue it then it shouldn't be in there.

By your logic, since your countrymen fought three bloody civil wars to establish the constitutional right of the people to withhold consent to the monarch's rule (civil wars which, I think we can all agree, more than qualify as "arguing"), your so-called Constitution is completely invalid. Again, by your logic.

A constitution should be about inalienable rights not guns and alcohol. It should be about free speech, freedom of religion, right to congregate etc. It becomes worthless when you put worthless things in it. If you can argue it then it shouldn't be in there.

By your logic, since your countrymen fought three bloody civil wars to establish the constitutional right of the people to withhold consent to the monarch's rule (civil wars which, I think we can all agree, more than qualify as "arguing"), your so-called Constitution is completely invalid. Again, by your logic.

We don't have a constitution, so my logic is impeccable

I never said you did, and your logic is shit.

Quote:

your so-called Constitution

Would you like to revise your comment? Or is your comprehension as bad as your logic._________________"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt

A constitution should be about inalienable rights not guns and alcohol. It should be about free speech, freedom of religion, right to congregate etc. It becomes worthless when you put worthless things in it. If you can argue it then it shouldn't be in there.

By your logic, since your countrymen fought three bloody civil wars to establish the constitutional right of the people to withhold consent to the monarch's rule (civil wars which, I think we can all agree, more than qualify as "arguing"), your so-called Constitution is completely invalid. Again, by your logic.

We don't have a constitution

That is your problem. It is too easy for the politicians and the people than own them to change the rules in the middle of the game without a constitution. Here in the US politicians of most stripes ignore the Constitution, so they try to change the rules in the middle of the game. That has become the trademark of the American leftist._________________I like babies. They keep secrets.

The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell

A constitution should be about inalienable rights not guns and alcohol. It should be about free speech, freedom of religion, right to congregate etc. It becomes worthless when you put worthless things in it. If you can argue it then it shouldn't be in there.

By your logic, since your countrymen fought three bloody civil wars to establish the constitutional right of the people to withhold consent to the monarch's rule (civil wars which, I think we can all agree, more than qualify as "arguing"), your so-called Constitution is completely invalid. Again, by your logic.

We don't have a constitution, so my logic is impeccable

I never said you did, and your logic is shit.

Quote:

your so-called Constitution

Would you like to revise your comment? Or is your comprehension as bad as your logic.

You are excruciatingly confused. Last time we discussed this, you argued vehemently that you DO have a constitution, it's just not a single document like ours: that it's made up of a mixture of various documents, legal precedents, etc. Now you're saying you DON'T have a constitution? I hate to burst your wobbly bubble of blissful ignorance, but you can't have "constitutional" rights and be a "constitutional monarchy" without a constitution. So which is it? Do you have a constitution, or don't you?

isn't the farming industry the biggest recipient of government handouts? And where is idaho on that?

Nowhere as close to the recipient California is. Of course, I wonder what farmers have to say about subsidies.

juniper wrote:

repeal the second. double down on the first.

Yeah, I'm really not seeing the whole problem with the 2nd Amendment. What I do see, however, are stupid policy makers at every level of administration who are so deranged...they actually think a sign that says "Gun Free" will keep criminals with guns away instead of attracting them.

But maybe Idaho needs to start regulating knives more heavily because we did actually have a murder happen recently:

i have a feeling that what any particular farmer thinks about subsidies depends on how much subsidies he or she gets.

Why do you always produce these caveated, slanted statistics? Why would you compare subsidies on a "per acre" basis? Does each acre get one vote, or pay the same amount of taxes or something? Do you really think an acre of grass or potatoes is worth the same as an acre of garlic or almonds? Why do you pull this crap? I know you're smart enough not to be falling for it yourself, so what's the story?

i have a feeling that what any particular farmer thinks about subsidies depends on how much subsidies he or she gets.

Why do you always produce these caveated, slanted statistics? Why would you compare subsidies on a "per acre" basis? Does each acre get one vote, or pay the same amount of taxes or something? Do you really think an acre of grass or potatoes is worth the same as an acre of garlic or almonds? Why do you pull this crap? I know you're smart enough not to be falling for it yourself, so what's the story?

On what basis do you suggest that subsidies be compared? If you compared per capita, or per GDP, Idaho would look like an even bigger beneficiary. Comparing raw dollars to each state is meaningless, since states are different sizes, and have different amounts of farms.

A constitution should be about inalienable rights not guns and alcohol. It should be about free speech, freedom of religion, right to congregate etc. It becomes worthless when you put worthless things in it. If you can argue it then it shouldn't be in there.

By your logic, since your countrymen fought three bloody civil wars to establish the constitutional right of the people to withhold consent to the monarch's rule (civil wars which, I think we can all agree, more than qualify as "arguing"), your so-called Constitution is completely invalid. Again, by your logic.

We don't have a constitution

That is your problem. It is too easy for the politicians and the people than own them to change the rules in the middle of the game without a constitution. Here in the US politicians of most stripes ignore the Constitution, so they try to change the rules in the middle of the game. That has become the trademark of the American leftist.

Laws are laws, they don't need a constitution_________________"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt

A constitution should be about inalienable rights not guns and alcohol. It should be about free speech, freedom of religion, right to congregate etc. It becomes worthless when you put worthless things in it. If you can argue it then it shouldn't be in there.

By your logic, since your countrymen fought three bloody civil wars to establish the constitutional right of the people to withhold consent to the monarch's rule (civil wars which, I think we can all agree, more than qualify as "arguing"), your so-called Constitution is completely invalid. Again, by your logic.

We don't have a constitution, so my logic is impeccable

I never said you did, and your logic is shit.

Quote:

your so-called Constitution

Would you like to revise your comment? Or is your comprehension as bad as your logic.

You are excruciatingly confused. Last time we discussed this, you argued vehemently that you DO have a constitution, it's just not a single document like ours: that it's made up of a mixture of various documents, legal precedents, etc. Now you're saying you DON'T have a constitution? I hate to burst your wobbly bubble of blissful ignorance, but you can't have "constitutional" rights and be a "constitutional monarchy" without a constitution. So which is it? Do you have a constitution, or don't you?

Awwwwww, poor bubba. Let me wipe that tear fwom your eye. It just shows I can beat you from both sides of an argument _________________"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt

A constitution should be about inalienable rights not guns and alcohol. It should be about free speech, freedom of religion, right to congregate etc. It becomes worthless when you put worthless things in it. If you can argue it then it shouldn't be in there.

By your logic, since your countrymen fought three bloody civil wars to establish the constitutional right of the people to withhold consent to the monarch's rule (civil wars which, I think we can all agree, more than qualify as "arguing"), your so-called Constitution is completely invalid. Again, by your logic.

We don't have a constitution

That is your problem. It is too easy for the politicians and the people than own them to change the rules in the middle of the game without a constitution. Here in the US politicians of most stripes ignore the Constitution, so they try to change the rules in the middle of the game. That has become the trademark of the American leftist.

Laws are laws, they don't need a constitution

Exactly ... We operate a common law system so previous cases fully document our rights. Can new cases interpret laws? of course but the US supreme court "re-interprets" the constitution. Can new laws be written to repeal or change old laws? of course but this occurs with the constitution as well... how many amendments are there? 27 ...

IF the constitution was immutable there would be a valid stance BUT IT ISN'T. Sure it is hard to make an amendment BUT equally it is hard to get through the commons, the lords, the crown court a new law that infringes on rights... there have been many a cases where a law the commons forced through that then got repealed by the crown court due to violation of other laws

it maybe easier to change in the UK but that is because it is single country NOT 50 countries... a constitutional change needs ratification by all states iirc BUT it doesn't stop other state implementing the intent sooner. iirc there was a situation recently where a state finally ratified a law that all other states already had and thus an old amendment became a federal amendment_________________The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king

A constitution should be about inalienable rights not guns and alcohol. It should be about free speech, freedom of religion, right to congregate etc. It becomes worthless when you put worthless things in it. If you can argue it then it shouldn't be in there.

By your logic, since your countrymen fought three bloody civil wars to establish the constitutional right of the people to withhold consent to the monarch's rule (civil wars which, I think we can all agree, more than qualify as "arguing"), your so-called Constitution is completely invalid. Again, by your logic.

We don't have a constitution

That is your problem. It is too easy for the politicians and the people than own them to change the rules in the middle of the game without a constitution. Here in the US politicians of most stripes ignore the Constitution, so they try to change the rules in the middle of the game. That has become the trademark of the American leftist.

Laws are laws, they don't need a constitution

Exactly ... We operate a common law system so previous cases fully document our rights. Can new cases interpret laws? of course but the US supreme court "re-interprets" the constitution. Can new laws be written to repeal or change old laws? of course but this occurs with the constitution as well... how many amendments are there? 27 ...

IF the constitution was immutable there would be a valid stance BUT IT ISN'T. Sure it is hard to make an amendment BUT equally it is hard to get through the commons, the lords, the crown court a new law that infringes on rights... there have been many a cases where a law the commons forced through that then got repealed by the crown court due to violation of other laws

it maybe easier to change in the UK but that is because it is single country NOT 50 countries... a constitutional change needs ratification by all states iirc BUT it doesn't stop other state implementing the intent sooner. iirc there was a situation recently where a state finally ratified a law that all other states already had and thus an old amendment became a federal amendment

It's not my fault they have state laws. The law should be final over all states_________________"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt

Well... no... They are a union and thus each state is essentially autonomous for internal affairs. The UK operates this to a degree, all the way back to the empire.
"Mother England" would set the laws but different colonies had some flexibility... Even today we have this with devolved powers with UK -> Wales and Scotland. In fact we need to implement something akin to a federal system if aspects of devolvement keep occuring. Right now Scottish MP's can vote on english-only affairs while English MP's cannot on scottish devolved powers. THEN we would need a system,a constitution clearly stating the limitation of the federalised UnitedKingdom and to change aspects of this would require agreement from England,Scotland,Wales, NI, Overseas territories....
As I said, we have this but more on an ad-hoc basis and ultimate power resides with parliament (in the granting of the exceptions) rather than in the territories (granting the commonality)

Essentially the constitution exists to limit the federal government & this occured due to the perceived tyranny from the crown (even though the colonies had life so much better than residence) . Sure it guarantees rights to the citizens of the union BUT as a byproduct of limiting the federal government. As it is a set of common law's all must agree on them as these common laws restrict what an individual state can do autonomously. A state cannot ban all guns otherwise the federal govn' would sue. Likewise the federal govn' can't ban guns because the constitution states this is a right. ALL states can agree to repeal._________________The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king

On what basis do you suggest that subsidies be compared? If you compared per capita, or per GDP, Idaho would look like an even bigger beneficiary. Comparing raw dollars to each state is meaningless, since states are different sizes, and have different amounts of farms.

I don't get his beef either.

For the reason he mentions (different crops may "require" different subsidies, and of course farmers must have subsidies), but it's certainly one metric. Per GDP is another (how efficient are those subsidies?) and per kilogram of food (again, efficiency), but now i am just making up shit as a non-farmer._________________

wswartzendruber wrote:

Well, every group has its nutjobs, and the Second Amendment crowd is no exception.

On what basis do you suggest that subsidies be compared? If you compared per capita, or per GDP, Idaho would look like an even bigger beneficiary. Comparing raw dollars to each state is meaningless, since states are different sizes, and have different amounts of farms.

I don't get his beef either.

For the reason he mentions (different crops may "require" different subsidies, and of course farmers must have subsidies), but it's certainly one metric. Per GDP is another (how efficient are those subsidies?) and per kilogram of food (again, efficiency), but now i am just making up shit as a non-farmer.

My beef is that he pulled one arbitrary basis for comparison out of his ass and made the comparison. He did. Not me. He did. Not me.

Hello, McFly? Then he turns around and argued that I haven't presented a better simplistic arbitrary basis for comparison than his simplistic arbitrary basis for comparison?

Then you join in and say you don't get MY logic?

Also, try and keep up,; you're like days behind in the discussion._________________

patrix_neo wrote:

The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it.

And add in constitution provisions for affirmative action for conservatives and ensure that they don't stay stupid._________________"Defeat is a state of mind. No one is ever defeated, until defeat has been accepted as a reality." -- Bruce Lee

Okay. Do you still expect the liberal states to subsidize you and provide you with fruits and vegetables?

Liberal states like California that have worse living standards and education statistics than Mississippi? What a laugh! I'm looking at the agricultural counties in California, and they all seemed to have voted Trump in the last election. Just the coast and large cities went for crooked Hillary. I do not think LA or the Gay Bay produces a whole lot of lettuce.

Please do tell them about the bees they import each year from australia! Please!
Ok, I do it...they do pollenate, but the same sort of flower, so the hives die, every frickin year. While the bees stand for over 33 percent of our food.
The cali style are actually killing you.